Sean “Diddy” Combs’ request for a gag order has been denied by a federal judge, meaning he can’t silence any potential witnesses or their attorneys ahead of upcoming legal proceedings.
Didi sought restrictions aimed at preventing those claiming to be victims and their lawyers from making public statements that he argued could interfere with his right to a fair trial.
However, Justice Arun Subramanian firmly rejected the motion, ruling that such a broad restriction did not fall within the court’s rules.
The request was seen as an extreme and unusual measure that the government opposed, calling it “extraordinary and beyond the scope of the legal framework”.
Judge Subramanian based his decision on established legal precedent, explaining that local rules did not authorize broad restrictions on speech that could silence potential witnesses, some of whom have yet to be identified. .
“The Coombs administration does not support the application of the gag order not only to trial participants but also to any alleged victims and their attorneys,” the judge wrote in a detailed opinion.
Subramanian added that the seriousness of gag orders often makes them a “last resort” legal remedy, but in this case it was unjustified.
As Subramanian points out, “Before imposing restrictions on speech, less restrictive alternatives must be considered and rejected.”
Diddy cited various legal cases in his arguments in support of the gag order, but the judge found the citations insufficient.
The motion was described as too broad, treating witnesses and their lawyers equally and potentially affecting other related legal proceedings, and Subramanian said the move went too far.
In a further blow to Didi’s legal strategy, Judge Subramanian also rejected his request to have witnesses retract online posts that Didi claimed violated local regulations.
In addition, Diddy also requested access to government communications related to these extralegal remarks, but the court also refused to grant this request.
“Combs’s motion to seek unprecedented relief is without merit,” the judge wrote in his conclusion.
Subramanian noted that the court has already taken existing steps, including reminding parties of standards set by federal and local rules for public statements in the case.
